Hey!! So what!! I was RAISED on Biggles books!! And my other fav has already been aired above..the Spitty!! and the Hurricane. From the days when Men were Men, and sheep in France were afraid!!! Hahahah!! Nick
IP: Logged
04:54 AM
Mike Marden Member
Posts: 432 From: Fernandina Beach, FL Registered: Aug 2006
For me, it has to be the KC-130 built by Lockheed Martin.
This special aircraft has a certain personality that I truly adore. It can do anything from aerial refueling to troop/cargo transport, aerial delivery, and battlefield illumination. The US has been flying this aircraft for over 50 years, and with the brand new "J" model, will probably continue to use it for many more. Watch the video starting at 4:19 where it's wheels first touch the ground. It comes to a complete stop, offloads 2 vehicles, reverses back down the runway and takes off with the wheels being on the ground for less than a minute.
My third-oldest nephew, John Skinner, was a pilot on Fat Albert '91 through '93 www.blueangels.org/Marines/1991/MYEAR91.html . Loved the rocket-assisted take-off they do at the shows
My fav has always been the Lightning P-38.
------------------ The only problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard
86 SE 2.8 4-Speed
[This message has been edited by Mike Marden (edited 01-02-2008).]
IP: Logged
09:32 AM
SCCAFiero Member
Posts: 1144 From: Boca Raton, Fl USA Registered: Apr 2006
Howard Hughes HATED the name "Spruce Goose." That was what his detractors called it to make fun of him. It's sad that the photo even makes reference to it.
IP: Logged
12:44 PM
intlcutlass Member
Posts: 1431 From: Cleveland,Oh.44067 Registered: Nov 2002
Howard Hughes HATED the name "Spruce Goose." That was what his detractors called it to make fun of him. It's sad that the photo even makes reference to it.
I remember that..... but nobody whould know what I ment if I refered to it as the HK1.....
I was a structural maintenance tech on these at Pease AFB. Actually I think the plane above is an "F" model F-111 not an FB-111A. It's hard to find good photos of the FB version.
IP: Logged
01:17 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
intlcutlass---It is a cool aircraft. Here's a vid I have in my favorites on Youtube. Also an odd story. I was looking thru a DOD website and found a Document onthe German JU-287. Now for those that do not know about the JU-287 it was a 4 engine Jet bomber during WWII. It had flown and was being readied for production. Now if the fact that the germans already had a 4 engine jet bomber in service(all be a small one) and were adding another isn't odd enough considering we didn't have a jet bomber till like the mid 50's. The JU-287 had forward swept wings like the X-29. Now consider how long it took us to make an experimental forward swept wing aircraft and the Germans were prepared to use one as a production bomber. Shows how far ahead of use they really were. NOW back to the ODD part. This document was only declassified in 1995?
84Bill---Thanx. I always loved the Convair planes. And who wouldn't like a mach 2+ delta wing bomber. And one as sexy as the Hustler. I have a few more of those are pictures. If anyone wants to see them or wants the link let me know as there are more on the site.
IP: Logged
01:41 PM
PFF
System Bot
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Rotodyne- Why the USA has spent billions on the v-22 when this thing has been around sine the 60's...????
Looks like it'd be more complex than the V-22. Still bet you'd have trouble with the rotary wing into high headwinds (if that'd be the best way to put it) Top speed of 191 mph Neat Idea but must have been noisy or hard to maintain. good You Tube here: http://www.helis.com/50s/h_rotdyn.php
Airspeed is limited on Rotary Winged aircraft due to difference in lift generated by the forward moving blades versus the aft headed blades. The aircraft can only go so fast, the forward moving blades produce more lift than the rearward moving blades. In modern helicopters, the swash plate in the hub compensates for the difference in lift generated by the rotor system quadrants. At some point, depending on the blade design and the hub system, the rearward blades can't compensate after a certain point. At that point, the helicopter will attempt to do aerobatic maneuvers without the pilots input.
------------------ Ron
It's the Soldier, not the reporter Who has given us the freedom of the press. It's the Soldier, not the poet, Who has given us the freedom of speech. It's the Soldier, not the politicians That ensures our right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It's the Soldier who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag, And whose coffin is draped by the flag.
IP: Logged
04:33 PM
buddycraigg Member
Posts: 13606 From: kansas city, mo Registered: Jul 2002
Airspeed is limited on Rotary Winged aircraft due to difference in lift generated by the forward moving blades versus the aft headed blades. The aircraft can only go so fast, the forward moving blades produce more lift than the rearward moving blades. In modern helicopters, the swash plate in the hub compensates for the difference in lift generated by the rotor system quadrants. At some point, depending on the blade design and the hub system, the rearward blades can't compensate after a certain point. At that point, the helicopter will attempt to do aerobatic maneuvers without the pilots input.
Keeping it simple:
The Military wanted a craft that could take off like a helo, and have roughly the speed of an airplane. They wanted it to be armed (The Osprey is not armed with the nosecannon they wanted), and have the capability to carry x number of troops. This could have been one of those cases of form follows function. They have spent an obscene amount on the osprey , when IMHO, they could have invensted a fraction of the amount in the concept behind the rotodyne & upgraded the engines to speed it along. The theoretical max speed was thought to be 250 mph... but a hybrid craft like this one could potentially go a bit more than that.
The Sikorsky S-69 hit 322 mph
IP: Logged
04:47 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 32147 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
If you think the Osprey was expensive, fielding a few hundred of these would be like buying F 22s, well maybe not quite as much but very expensive A/C. The Advancing Blade Concept IMO was worth further research but apparently funding was not available at least to military channels. There is a lot of politicing that goes on for a limited budget and every Politician wants those dollars spent in their own district or state.
It's also important to remember that the XH-59 or S69 as some call it was "experimental" and never proven to be reliable. Personally, I'd still be flying if the Osprey had been an Army A/C. I seriously considered moving over the the Marines but, sea duty wasn't something that I was interested in.
In February 1972, Sikorsky announced the development of an experimental helicopter designated S-69, which was designed to study the Advancing Blade Concept (ABC). This new system consisted of two rigid, contra-rotating rotors which made use of the aerodynamic lift of the advancing blades. At high speeds, the retreating blades were offloaded, as most of the load was supported by the advancing blades of both rotors and the penalty due to stall of the retreating blade was thus eliminated. This system did not even require a wing to be fitted for high speeds and to improve manoeuvrability, and also eliminated the need for an anti-torque rotor at the tail.
The aim of the project was to evaluate the ABC with this helicopter, first using scale models for wind tunnel tests at the Ames NASA research center, and then the real aircraft, which flew on 26 July 1973. Unfortunately, however, this prototype was lost in an accident a month later. Following an enquiry, design modifications were requested, plus improvements to the control system. Tests were resumed in July 1975 with a second aircraft. When test flights as a pure helicopter were completed, a new experimental phase began with the addition of an auxiliary turbojet. In 1983 Sikorsky proposed further modifying the aircraft as the XH-59B, with a shortened fuselage and ducted fan providing forward thrust.
G.Apostolo "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Helicopters", 1984
In late 1971 the Army Air Mobility Research and Development Laboratory awarded Sikorsky a contract for the development of a single-engined research helicopter prototype designed specifically to flight test the company's Advancing Blade Concept (ABC) rotor system. The resultant Model S-69, which was allotted the military designation XH-59A and the serial number 71-1472, made its first flight in July 1973.
The XH-59A's ABC system consisted of two three-bladed, coaxial, contra-rotating rigid rotors, both of which were driven by the craft's single 1825shp PT6T-3 Turbo Twin Pac engine. During high-speed flight only the advancing blades of each rotor generated lift; this off-loaded the retreating blades and thereby eliminated the aerodynamic restrictions caused by blade-stall and the high mach number effect of the advancing blade tip. This, in turn, produced greater stability and manoeuvrability while eliminating the need for either a supplementary lift-generating wing or an anti-torque tail rotor. The XH-59A's streamlined fuselage more closely resembled that of a conventional airplane than a helicopter, having a cantilever tail unit with twin endplate rudders, side-by-side seating for the two crewmen, and fully retractable tricycle landing gear.
The crash of the first XH-59A early in the flight test programme led to the construction of a second prototype incorporating several significant control system modifications. This second machine (73-21941) flew for the first time in 1975, and in 1977 was converted into a compound rotorcraft through the installation of two 1350kg J60-P-3A turbojet engines. The modified machine was jointly evaluated by the Army, Navy, and NASA beginning in 1978, and was later able to reach and maintain speeds in excess of 515kph in level flight. The first prototype was ultimately rebuilt as a compound rotorcraft under a NASA contract and subsequently test flown (with the new serial 73-29142) by mixed Army, Navy, and NASA crews at NASA's Moffet Field, California, test facility. Both XH-59A aircraft were officially transferred to NASA following the 1981 end of joint Army/Navy participation in the tri-partite flight test programme.
*************************************************************************************************************************************************** XH-59A Advancing Blade Concept (ABC) / S-69 NASA and DOD developed several rotary-wing-based aircraft that used powered lift technology. These included the XH-59A, advancing blade concept aircraft during the 1970s, the JVX or tilt-rotor aircraft, and the RSRA/X-wing aircraft. These aircraft had the common ability to take off and land vertically like a helicopter, but in flight, they used a variety of technologies to operate as conventional fixed-wing aircraft.
One way to eliminate the problem of stalling and reverse rotor blade flow that limits the forward speed of a helicopter is to use two counterrotating rotors. The Advancing Blade is that half of the rotor disc in which the rotation of the blade is moving in the same direction as the movement of the helicopter. If the helicopter is moving forward, the advancing blade will be the right half of the rotor disc; if moving backward, it will be in the left half; if moving sideward to the left, it will be in the forward half; and if moving sideward to the right, it will be in the rear half. Rotor blades flap to equalize lift between the advancing blade half and retreating blade half of the rotor disc. Dissymmetry is created by forward movement of the helicopter. When the helicopter is moving forward, the speed of the advancing blade is the sum of the indicated airspeed of the helicopter plus the rotational speed of the blade.
The Advancing Blade Concept (ABC) uses two rigid counterrotating rotors in a coaxial arrangement to provide advancing blades on both sides of the aircraft. This makes use of the high dynamic pressure on the advancing side of the rotors at high forward speed, virtually ignoring the low dynamic pressure on the retreating side, while still keeping the rotor system in roll trim. Theoretically, such a rotor system will maintain its lift potential as speed increases. The XH-59A was designed to investigate this theory.
This is the principle behind the XH-59A, built by Sikorsky Aircraft [S-69] in a jointly funded Army, NASA, and now, Navy program. The XH-59A program started in 1971; by 1973, two XH-59As were ready for flight-testing.
The XH-59A Advancing Blade Concept demonstrator wa powered by the P&W-Canada PT6T-3 Turbo Twin-Pac and two P&W J60 turbojets. It had two stacked, contrarotating 36' rotors. As a pure helicopter, it achieved 184 mph level flight speed, 221 mph in a dive; with auxiliary propulsion, it achieved 274mph (>322mph) in level flight. However, one aircraft was lost during a hard landing.
Flight-testing of the XH-59A as a pure rotary-wing craft had been completed by 1977. The XH-59A’s extreme agility and maneuverability were even more than had been expected. This maneuverability comes about because of the very stiff rotor blades used on the XH-59A, making the ABC an ideal candidate for a combat aircraft. The stiffer blades are also more rugged and thus more likely to survive encounters with tree limbs and hits from small arms fire.
In 1978, the high-speed test program was started with the addition of two auxiliary 3000-pound thrust jet engines mounted on the fuselage. The YH-59A had two additional P&W J60-P-3As, and two aircraft were built. The first flew on 26 July 1973, but crashed on 24 August 1973. The second aircraft flew on 21 July 1975, and in March 1977 the two J60s were installed for forward flight.
The XH-59B with PT6T-3 and shrouded fan was proposed, but never built. It was to be converted with two T700-GE-700s, contrarotating rotors, and a tail-mounted pusher prop. This project, which was designated XH-59B, was not proceeded with.
Advancing Blade Concept was a contender for the RAH-66, but the transmission weight penalties were too high and so the trade study decided that the advantages were outweighed by the weight disadvantage. ------------------ Ron
It's the Soldier, not the reporter Who has given us the freedom of the press. It's the Soldier, not the poet, Who has given us the freedom of speech. It's the Soldier, not the politicians That ensures our right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It's the Soldier who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag, And whose coffin is draped by the flag.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-02-2008).]
A little different than the warbirds most are posting here, but I am going to be going to school to fly these for a living Hopefully then I can afford to work on my Fiero!
I always liked this jet after playing the AcroJet game on my Commodore 64 and seeing it in the James Bond movie Ocotpussy. It's affordable too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede_BD-5
I met Corky Fornoff, the stunt pilot who flew thru the hanger, in 2002. He was a down to earth guy. (Was one of the best charter's I drove. Met several greats in the motorsports arena.)
[This message has been edited by Gokart Mozart (edited 01-02-2008).]
IP: Logged
07:07 PM
htexans1 Member
Posts: 9114 From: Clear Lake City/Houston TX Registered: Sep 2001
Originally posted by Gokart Mozart: I met Corky Fornoff, the stunt pilot who flew thru the hanger, in 2002. He was a down to earth guy. (Was one of the best charter's I drove. Met several greats in the motorsports arena.)
I think it was hanging from the ceiling in the Underground where Bond met M and she reinstated his 00 status. Q was walking around with him and Bond was fiddling with the old gear.
Originally posted by Gokart Mozart: I think it was hanging from the ceiling in the Underground where Bond met M and she reinstated his 00 status. Q was walking around with him and Bond was fiddling with the old gear.
I think you would be able too. The empty weight of just 358 lb (162 kg). The US Military is using this jet for something....
[This message has been edited by FierociousGT (edited 01-02-2008).]
IP: Logged
08:54 PM
buddycraigg Member
Posts: 13606 From: kansas city, mo Registered: Jul 2002
Hughes XF-11 "The aircraft was designed to meet the same requirements as the Republic XF-12; specifications called for a fast, long ranging photo-reconnaissance aircraft. Said to be a scaled-up version of the earlier Hughes D-2, the final design was similar in general appearance to the famous Lockheed P-38 Lightning [1]. It was a tricycle-gear, twin-engine, twin-boom all-metal monoplane with a pressurized central crew nacelle, with a much larger span and much higher aspect ratio than the P-38's wing.
The XF-11 used Pratt & Whitney R-4360-31 28-cylinder radial engines with twin four-bladed, controllable-pitch propellers at the front of each engine. The propeller design was very unusual in that the front and rear propellers on each engine were counter-rotating, which can increase a propeller-driven aircraft's performance and stability, but which can also add much mechanical complexity.
The Army originally ordered 100 of them for the purposes of photo reconnaissance. The order was cancelled following the end of World War II, leaving Hughes with two prototypes."
General characteristics
* Crew: two, pilot and navigator/photographer * Length: 65 ft 5 in (19.94 m) * Wingspan: 101 ft 4 in (30.89 m) * Height: 23 ft 2 in (7.06 m) * Wing area: 983 ft² (91.3 m²) * Empty weight: 37,100 lb (16,800 kg) * Max takeoff weight: 58,300 lb (26,400 kg) * Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney R-4360-31 radial , 3,000 hp (2,240 kW) each
Performance
* Maximum speed: 450 mph (720 km/h) * Range: 5,000 miles (8,000 km) * Service ceiling: 44,000 ft (13,415 m)
Mainly just because I did contra rotating props.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 01-02-2008).]
IP: Logged
10:32 PM
Jan 3rd, 2008
TennT Member
Posts: 1523 From: Humboldt, Tenn Registered: Nov 2002
Evidently he did, scrapping the twin prop idea. Plane was unstable at low speeds and the order was cancelled. U2 is still flying! Can you believe it? Blackbird retired and U2 still working (very updated cameras, I'm told).
IP: Logged
02:16 AM
fieroturbo Member
Posts: 1085 From: Orefield, PA Registered: Jan 2003
What other plane could go mach 2, simultaneously target up to 26 aircraft, simultaneously fire at 6 aircraft at 100 miles away, and still keep tracking other targets? None!
As much as I love F-14's, they're gone now, so I submit the P-3C Orion... the planes I work on:
And also, the P-3 community has done something that most fighter jets have never done: We took out a Chinese fighter jet in-flight!
------------------ Petty Officer Michael C Casaceli Aircraft Electronics Technician Second Class AIMD Brunswick (2007-present) Patrol Squadron Ten (2003-2007) United States Navy
[This message has been edited by fieroturbo (edited 01-03-2008).]
IP: Logged
02:27 AM
Fieromaniac Member
Posts: 980 From: Hamburg, Germany Registered: Nov 2006
And also, the P-3 community has done something that most fighter jets have never done: We took out a Chinese fighter jet in-flight!
Yes, but the crew also made an emergency landing in China and taken prisoner. One of my former instructors was on that flight. Oh, and get this, the Chinese pilot's name: Wong Wei!
BTW: the engines on the P3's are mounted upside-down!
------------------ "Semper Fiero"
IP: Logged
06:22 AM
htexans1 Member
Posts: 9114 From: Clear Lake City/Houston TX Registered: Sep 2001
Didn't Howard have trouble with the pitch control and crash one in LA, killing someone on the ground?
Yeah. He crashed the first prototype when the pitch control on one of the props failed and it reversed pitch throwing the plane into an extreme yaw rate. I don't remember if anyone died in the crash, but it nearly killed Hughes.
IP: Logged
08:59 AM
The_Stickman2 Member
Posts: 1030 From: Lehigh Valley Pa. Registered: Sep 2007
I do love this plane. The Caspian Sea Monster is as cool as you get. And look at the size of it. This was the first video I posted in this thread. BTW They still exist. You can see them on Google earth. I thought these would make a great yacht.
For some reason, I was thinking the B58 was from North American Aviation, not Convair.....
Nope. Convair went from making the behemouth B36 to the X92, F102, F106, F2Y Sea Dart, And B58. All Delta's after the B-36. I love them all, well except for the B36 as it was chosen over Northrops Flying wings.
IP: Logged
09:54 AM
swisscheese Member
Posts: 537 From: somewhere over the pond Registered: Oct 2005
anyone notice how many designs and how much work was done in aerodynamics before the mid 60s or so? Most modern work seems to be revolving around trying to get old ideas to work using modern technology. Or am I not observant enough (in this area)? tg
Hopefully then I can afford to work on my Fiero!
.jpg)
